US Army spent $2.7 billion on a battlefield computer that doesn’t work

Share This article

It has emerged that the multi-billion-dollar DCGS-A military computer system that was designed to help the US Army in Iraq and Afghanistan simply doesn’t work. DCGS-A is meant to accrue intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance, and provide real-time battlefield analysis and the current location of high-value targets. According to two former intelligence officers that have worked with the system, however, it has hindered the war effort rather than helped.

This story has developed over the last year, beginning with a memo sent by Major General Michael Flynn, the Army’s top intelligence officer stationed in Afghanistan. In the memo [PDF], Flynn damns the apparent ineffectiveness of DCGS-A: “Analysts cannot provide their commanders a full understanding of the operational environment. Without the full understanding of the enemy and human terrain, our operations are not as successful as they could be. This shortfall translates into operational opportunities missed and lives lost.”

The memo reached the ears of several Representatives on July 19 2010, who then asked the US Army to consider switching to another, proven system that the FBI and CIA use: Palantir. The Army refused, and instead rolled out a software update that was meant to fix any issues. Unfortunately, according to the former intelligence officers, the system is still unusable. “You couldn’t share the data,” says one of the former officers, and they both agree that the system is “prone to crashes and frequently going off-line.”

“Almost any commercial solution out there would be better,” said one. “It doesn’t work. It’s not providing the capabilities that they need,” said the other.

This isn’t the first time that the US Army — or indeed any sovereign armed force — has spent a lot of money on a system that doesn’t work. With such huge budgets, and massive systems and weapons with additional expenditure that can’t possibly be accounted for ahead of time, military spending nearly always turns into case of throwing good money after bad. Still, to spend almost $3 billion on a broken system, while proven, out-of-the-box alternatives like Palantir are readily and cheaply available, is pretty darn special.

Tagged In

Post a Comment

Anonymous

And the original source for this story would be, maybe, Palantir marketing?

I’m not defending DCGS-A, but I’ve seen -many times- a supposed “commercial alternative,” when actually evaluated against the full set of requirements, end up meeting the easy 80%, while ignoring the 20% that actually drive costs/schedule/effort for the contracted product. As an example (which I do NOT assert is a DCGS-A requirement), life is easy if you don’t have to meet 5×9 availability requirements, and a real pain-in-the-ass if you do. (Technical hint: at this level of availability, you can’t reboot more than once per year, as a normal system reboot tends to eat up most of that year’s allowable downtime.)Commercial alternatives can/should cause the system requirements writers to re-examine and re-validate requirements. But when they do so, and reassert those tough requirements, COTS/industrial/commercial products that can’t meet the tough requirements either have to be willing to change, or be removed from consideration.

http://www.mrseb.co.uk Sebastian Anthony

Cool, thanks for the input.

As noted below, the Palantir comments come from US Representatives, not me, or the source article. There could be marketing/lobby dollars going towards the US Reps, though.

http://pulse.yahoo.com/_2MOEG5QBQPVOIXRA4TQGNBP7IE Starfires

I think there’s some lobbying going on here. I also think as an online journalist you should exercise some discretion here, as your last line comes across as a ringing endorsement of Palantir and a blatant dismissal of DCGS-A, which may actually just need some modification. I’m just saying, to promote a product like that is likely to have you considered a shill for it, even though I believe you were just making an interesting story out of the situation.

Anonymous

There most certainly are – this all started because Palantir was taking it on the “chin” over the i2 lawsuit. Then they weren’t selected for this project so in the old addage…”the best defense is a good offense”. Most of the “doesn’t work” data is from a year ago and the system being deployed starting 6 months ago is better – not perfect, but better. The extraordinary situation to find the right solution are described well above.
I think Palantir is still hurting for having to pay i2 to settle the suite and the i2 legal bills (along with their own). Why else would they be raising money again a year after raising $80M? Most of that must have been used to settle the suit.

http://twitter.com/kamalsprasad Kamal S. Prasad

What is the purpose of the BSOD as the image for the story? There is no mention of Windows or any other Microsoft technology in the article or how they are responsible for this “broken” system.

http://www.mrseb.co.uk Sebastian Anthony

For the simple fact that you recognized it as a BSOD. It’s the universal symbol for a crashing computer :)

(I couldn’t find an image of DCGS-A — and I think it’s cloud-based, anyway, so I’m not sure there would be much to show…)

Anonymous

I would suggest that J. Jones had it right in their post above. This article seems to lack any deep research and is probably connected to the company that lost out. The fact that you’re using completely unrelated images to back up your post just proves this. Cough *hack* cough.

http://www.mrseb.co.uk Sebastian Anthony

It’s obviously a very fine line between being amusing, and being a hack…

https://launchpad.net/~jbjonesjr J. Jones

This story is flat out false. Having worked with Military Intelligence officers who have used DCGS-A (including it’s various versions), they will attest that this is simply not true. While there are portions of the program that are struggling (and could be an outright failure), you don’t have a $2.7B contract that just does one thing. The blatent pro-Palentir slant at the end of the article makes me really question who the source for this article was. Palentir won’t fix DCGS-A’s problems, cutting the dead weight will…

It was actually some US Representatives that first suggested using Palantir.

But again, the FBI and CIA already use Palantir — it was just given as an alternative to DCGS-A (there are not many alternatives, afaik).

https://launchpad.net/~jbjonesjr J. Jones

“There are not many alternatives, AFAIK.”

There are NO alternatives (good or bad). Palantir is a kick ass link analysis tool and graph visualization piece. However, it only fulfills a small fraction of the DCGS-A requirements (albeit some of the more visual/eye candy requirements).

And trust me, a US Rep isn’t the first to have suggested Palantir (and wasn’t the last). However, he is more likely to get something out of a switch to Pal. than a random Army Captain is.

After doing military contracting myself and having friends who have used this project in theater, it’s frustrating to see its issues and concerns raised in such an inaccurate and counter-productive manner (but the original politico piece).

My only other comment would be that this story is ripe for actual investigation and research. Politico relied on 2 ex-military turned contractors (for someone, follow the $$), and clearly some unnamed sources on the Hill who leaked docs and thoughts. After seeing this piece around the web for a few days, I’m still waiting for real details to come out (other than someone suggested an alternative, someone got 1 persons opinion, and then we call a project a failure to get the masses work up).

jew

stop arguing, your obviously lying about everything you faggot

https://profiles.google.com/107220366431264268377 Kevin

Sebastian, what’s your relationship with Palantir? There’s absolutely no mention of problems with DCGS-A in MG Flynn’s need request other then him wanting the new analytic tools he’s requesting to be able to work WITH that system (a strange request if you truly believe he’s claiming that system is responsible for the loss of men). The insane twisting of MG Flynn’s words coupled with the outright advertising for Palantir makes me very suspicious as to the motives behind this article..

http://www.mrseb.co.uk Sebastian Anthony

See comment above. I’m echoing the source article. It was some US Representatives that originally suggested the use of Palantir.

http://pulse.yahoo.com/_7KWKSU5DRUWVFQD5YYW3TFM6AU Tom C

Hey, isn’t Palantir that company that worked with HB Gary? I recall their mention during the whole Anonymous hacking HB Gary drama.

http://twitter.com/Chainsman Chainsman

What a huge shill for Palantir this bogus article is. I’m surprised this didn’t appear on PRNewswire from Palantir’s marketing department itself.
Palantir is simply another tool in the same genre. It only works as well as the consultants, or “Forward Deployed Engineers,” as they call them, are able to set it up.

But Palantir definitely owns the hype when it comes to this sort of system.

And, yes, the HBGary relationship with Palantir is undeniable.

Boris Badenov

Palantir is great for the uneducated-semantic or normal search capabilities suck.

Anonymous

I’m amused that the CIA & FBI are using a Palantir for their intelligence operations. Remember the original Palantir? The crystal ball used by Denethor of Gondor? It was controlled by Sauron, who chose whatever it would show, and reduced Denethor to a paranoid, raving lunatic. Maybe that explains what’s going on with CIA & FBI intel?

Steve Taylor

If this came from the reference artical where did the statement “out-of-the-box alternatives like Palantir are readily and cheaply available” come from? It is not in the article. How much research did you do on the price tag associated with Palentir?

http://pulse.yahoo.com/_TY4NEWNZMKNCPR76BPGZY2PG5M Comfortable

“Echoing” is what stenography is called nowadays?

Great journamalism there, Lou.

Anonymous

Crapintir (changed the name so that they don’t keep getting free publicity and ranking) spends significant $$ on high-ranking government officials. Yet, as mentioned below, they only deliver up a link analysis tool (yes, it is slick, but actually, pretty dumb in the way it handles the links/relationships – the analyst spends a lot of time pruning the crap it puts up on the screen), and a few other visualizations that are not as powerful as the ones found in DCGS-A, but DCGS-A does not provide a consistent look and feel between the various visualizations either – making it a bit painful to use by the analyst. Both systems are very pricy. Information sharing policy also cripples DCGS-A, something that will be an issue for Crapintir as well. I work with analysts, and like any package, some like, some don’t. Young, smart analysts seem to not care what tool you give them, they will use it, but get angry at the information that is not being shared that should, the ones not so tech savvy complain more about the tool. Interesting….

Anonymous

Well colour me surprised!

But hey, the shareholders of Northrop Grumman Corporation,Lockheed Martin Corporation, Boeing Co., Raytheon Co., General Dynamics and KBR Inc. all got their money’s worth.How about we cut the defense budget in half.It’s possible to do everything defense activities now do, if you just cut out the free giveaways to the biggest contractors. It’s basically just free money to the shareholders.

http://pulse.yahoo.com/_PNIAR37HQ44NJTU65B6TXPBBYA Allen The K

Time to switch to Linux!

Seriously, a free, open-source app that’s upgraded by thousands of users FOR FREE? I guess that goes against Pentagon policy of paying billions for STDW (Shiat That Don’t Work).

Yeah, I know. The Osprey now works, as did the hydrofoils. But did we really need them? Do we need $1T (that’s right – ONE TRILLION) worth of Gen-5 stealth fighters when the B-52 is still flying? What can the Somalis do against even a C-130? We could drop old Remington and Underwood typewriters from them and cause considerable damage! In fact, we SHOULD air-drop our garbage over Taliban-held areas, just to let them know what we eat, read, etc., and how they could have the same if they just stop being dicks about religion.

http://www.facebook.com/terrence.persaud Terrence Persaud

Linux is a pain in the ass. Do you really think the military and the corp of engineers really need something they can customize on their own? I mean, you saw the Katrina levees. They want a point and click interface.

As far as one trillion on a computer, that’s just baller.

http://pulse.yahoo.com/_QOTCSTXUKNPYJUZXW67MFQBVG4 John Smith

The Katrina levees were supposed to be maintained by the State of Louisiana, instead they spent the money on private industry, hoping to attract more casinos to the region.

http://pulse.yahoo.com/_QOTCSTXUKNPYJUZXW67MFQBVG4 John Smith

The Katrina levees were supposed to be maintained by the State of Louisiana, instead they spent the money on private industry, hoping to attract more casinos to the region.

Anonymous

Sorry but DCGS is based heavily on Open Source Solutions and RHEL is the muscle power behind the databases. Unfortunately there are still Windows App Servers involved,

http://pulse.yahoo.com/_QOTCSTXUKNPYJUZXW67MFQBVG4 John Smith

Windows servers….ah, the achilles heel.

http://pulse.yahoo.com/_QOTCSTXUKNPYJUZXW67MFQBVG4 John Smith

Windows servers….ah, the achilles heel.

http://acrankinesssingularity.blogspot.com ferricoxide

Err… The DoD and the intel communities are *HEAVY* users of Linux (as they were Solaris, NeXT, etc. before that), especially on the back-end.

I paid $32.67 for a XBOX 360 and my mom got a 17 inch Toshiba laptop for $94.83 being delivered to our house tomorrow by FedEX. I will never again pay expensive retail prices at stores. I even sold a 46 inch HDTV to my boss for $650 and it only cost me $52.78 to get. Here is the website we using to get all this stuff, GetCent.com

http://daindian.blogspot.com/ BostonFlyer

DOD is complete waste of money, we are broke it is time to shut down the empire and bring our military back home.

Anonymous

Is anyone actually surprised? I sure am not. We waste endless BILLIONS in places we have no business so why not buy stuff that doesnt work?

And don’t forget that… Something I think is worthy of serious consideration is that… A significant portion of the stuff the military works on that works well is stuff that’s designed to KILL HUMAN BEINGS.

Really: Give that a serious ponder.

http://twitter.com/TheBigOldDog TheBigOldDog

“military spending nearly always turns into case of throwing good money after bad”That’s the funniest thing I’ve read all day. Obviously the author is completely unfamiliar with US Military capability despite widespread reporting or perhaps (more likely) believes all defense spending is “good money after bad.”

lenos soteraki

u can just feed whole africa mofos!!

Anonymous

Ah-h-h-h, the Military-Industrial-Complex is alive and well.

Anonymous

This is a fantastic generalization about DCGS-A, with sparse facts. DCGS-A is not a “computer.” You clearly seem to get this, but the headline is misleading in the extreme. What evidence do you present as to specific, meaningful failures in the sense of cost overruns or performance shortfalls? You talked to two former intelligence officers? Really??? There are 50, 000 soliders in the Army Military Intelligence enterprise. You talked to two. I wonder where they worked, what their tasks were, what functionality they needed that it did not provide? This piece is all headline, no data. Worse still, you do not speak to a single element of the negative components of Palantir and they are significant. Their implmentation in this environment brings a very onerous long-term burden and as many of the comments suggest–they address only a piece of what falls under the DCGS-A PROGRAM….vice computer. I guess as “articles” go, I’ve read better.

http://pulse.yahoo.com/_35G7HCQVNA7HPVVMAY6GTTXFWU EMMY L

Exactly the opposite of this article is true, the DCGS-A has battle tested proven relaiability and a track record for sharing data seamlessly and effectively in all battlefield situations. Both wars have been superbly aided by this technologically superior system to the Politico software, and requires no adjustments to function perfectly. I commend the army on there foresight in using such an excellent addition to there intellegence efforts….just kidding it really is junk and the Army knows it.

http://pulse.yahoo.com/_35G7HCQVNA7HPVVMAY6GTTXFWU EMMY L

Exactly the opposite of this article is true, the DCGS-A has battle tested proven relaiability and a track record for sharing data seamlessly and effectively in all battlefield situations. Both wars have been superbly aided by this technologically superior system to the Palantir software, and requires no adjustments to function perfectly. I commend the army on there foresight in using such an excellent and advanced addition to there intellegence efforts….just kidding it really is junk and the Army knows it.

http://pulse.yahoo.com/_S5A53ICDVGIAZBYX3ZOPHVZX4Y Patrick

Which is precisely why the military budget needs to be cut… starve the beast as those repubs say! Right?

http://pulse.yahoo.com/_S5A53ICDVGIAZBYX3ZOPHVZX4Y Patrick

Oh and did anyone forget to note? Military intelligence is a contradiction in terms…

marine02xx

I actually work with those involved in the MCGS-MC program. For those praising Linux, many of the DCGS imagery and database codes were Unix based. Some still are, but some of the user interfaces are Windows based because the military has whored itself to Microsoft (I digress). Linux will not solve this problem. I think the crux of the issue is training and profiteering at the senior officer level. I have worked with these systems for over 15 years. They can work, but personnel need to 1) know what the systems can do, 2) units should STANDARDIZE the loads used in combat theaters and 3) stop injecting “shiny pennies” Commercial-Off-the-Shelf (COTS) programs for a particular function. They only confuse managers and users even more.
For example, Analyst Notebook is considered the premier link analysis program for social network analysis. It has become a program of record for DCGS-MC. One issue; flat client licenses are almost $3,000 a pop and server licenses are even more expensive. Although I think it may be worth the investment, software does not substitute for the analyst needing to fully understand a concept like social network analysis (statistics, graph theory, sociology, etc.) Palantir, another COTS application touted by the Intelligence Community, can perform some of the same functions, but is not fully compatible with .anb files, a proprietary code for Analyst Notebook charts. Oh, and did anyone monitor the battle between i2 and Palantir Tech over intellectual rights? A true soap opera if I ever saw one:http://venturebeat.com/2011/02/16/palantirs-third-black-eye-i2-lawsuit-settled/
Now intelligence elements are producing products both in AN and Palantir and now have to determine whether they should sink millions of dollars on commercial solutions that may not be compatible in the future. This could force the military to continue sinking money into DCGS solutions, making the analysts’ job even more frustrating. Good use of tax payer dollars? I question it…
Bottom line: If intelligence units do not understand the intent and full capability of the DCGS construct, they should not endorse commercial solutions. It’s like buying a bicycle, only using the seat without the rest of the bike and claiming the bike doesn’t work! Many of the military “intelligence officers” I’ve worked with who claim DCGS doesn’t work have never actually used the systems. Some also did not ensure their people were actually trained to use them! Well, I guess the retired colonels and generals need to augment their retirement pay somehow. Corporate welfare and fiscal discipline at its finest…

http://www.mrseb.co.uk Sebastian Anthony

Wow, thanks for stopping by and commenting :) Very interesting.

Boris Badenov

Working with the system yet to be fielded (so how are these expert officers able to gripe about something not out there yet?), bogus junk all through this blog.
First problem is no firm requirements as the government leads the system integration…this costs tax payers tripe money, double time, and generates a sea of shelf-ware documents that keep civil servants employed, but build nothing.
DoD acquisition processes are simply ridiculous and an abomination and waste of taxpayers monies, and short changes the warrior out there by years.
The civil servants and their MITRE counterparts possess college-knowledge, and that is short sighted as they have zero real-world experience in anything but DoD 5000.
The Marines could have a whiz-bang system if there supposedly technical leadership would step out of the way, figure what RTI means, and get the intel weenies on the same page. This community needs a swift kick in the arse as they are more like kids on a playground than the warriors I served with during my career.
Palantir and COTs solutions are nice, but what is the mission folks…we still cannot decide that; and in that lay the larger problem next to piece-meal funding for the Marines whose coming system makes the Army’s pale in comparison at a fraction of the cost.
Give the Marines some real bucks, let the engineers not operators design them a system for the 22nd century, and get the warfare doctrines in sync and documented (not in writing or updated – leadership problem big time). In 2 years or less the Marines could have what it has taken the Army to lose in 5 to 8 years.

Anonymous

A lot of you have no idea what your talking about. DCGS is a DOD program that each Branch of Service are required to meet. DCGS-A is the Army’s version of this program. I work in this program and the naw sayers in this article are full of it. This system started in Iraq as JIOC-I it was mostly a web based system at the time, using hp blade servers and hp storage works SAN. This was called the brain and it still exist today, but it was upgraded to IBM blades and a new SAN. There is a brain in Afghanistan, and at least 4 other brains in the US along with what is called a minibrain, which is a smaller version of the brain. Also, at the unit level there are WSS (Workstation Suite), which has grown from 6 physical dell 1850 and 2850 servers to 3 Dell 610 servers and two NETTAPPs. A WSS runs 15 Virtual Machines, 4 LINUX, 11 Windows Server 2008/2003. The LINUX machines run Oracle 11g, ARC services and message ingestion services. This system consists of both COTS and GOTS software. DCGS-A has been in Iraq since 2005 and has been successful. The problem is the Army has not done as good a job in implementing DCGS in Afghanistan as they did in Iraq. Training is also and issue I started in this program in 2006 as a trainer/maintainer and traveled to train units before they deployed to Iraq. Officers and Senior NCOs where seldom found at the training events. It was and still is mostly Specialist and below showing up for training, with one or two Sergeants or Staff Sergeants showing up. This is a big problem for the units and it needs to addressed if the Army wants this program to be successful. DCGS-A is more than just a computer it is a System of Systems and has come a long way from its infancy.

Alan Chism

I posted this in response to an article on defensesystems.com. From my experience as an actual analyst as well as the experience of those around me it is absolutely true. It’s slightly ironic, but this article seems to take a few cues from what I posted in May.

While I agree that cloud computing is the way forward, knowing DCGS’s reputation among soldiers here on the ground and my five years of user experience, I feel very little confidence in the DCGS team’s ability to implement anything that will be revolutionary- or USEFUL. When hearing descriptions of DCGS capabilities it sounds like a solid product- although this is far from the truth. It is cumbersome, unwieldy, and is a paper weight in most offices. It goes unused because of these issues. It is extremely resource intensive and it’s very expensive as well. You mention in the interview that a new version has been introduced. I am currently deployed to Afghanistan, and have received this new version (the image is near 100 gigabytes!), and it seems just like the older version and the one before that and the one before that. They through new programs in to the mix as if this makes the system better, these are programs that no one uses. If the system didn’t work before what makes you think it will work now with all the additional crap? Further, you talk about stream lining intelligence operations and cost savings in lieu of LTG Flynn’s guidance. It seems that the whole DCGS program has been run counter to his initiatives. How much has been wasted over the years awarding contracts to companies who seemingly have no concept of how the intelligence culture and methodology works? DCGS has been around for a while and is still having the same issues it always has. You pay technical workers to maintain the system, you pay trainers to teach the system, and you pay TDY for soldiers to receive this training at remote locations. This system has intrinsically cost the tax payer billions of dollars by virtue of paying for all this- for a system that no one uses. You guys need to get real and cut ties in my honest opinion. It is not rocket science to add all these databases- essentially it is a series of structured and unstructured data that is visually displayed, with various tools to make sense of it. The issue is that there are already systems out there that do this- and they do it 100% better than DCGS ever has. These programs, such as Palantir, are already here they are systems that take this structured and unstructured data from any source and instantly, efficiently, and securely make use of it. Some units are already using Palantir in the Army regardless of DCGS availability- because it is better, cheaper, and faster. I have been able to increase my productivity by at least 10x with Palantir versus DCGS- it literally takes seconds to do things that would take a lot longer to do in DCGS, and it’s more intuitive and looks better. I really hope someone sees this because I feel that soldiers- ie the ones who are actually supposed to use the system- have no voice. This system is a waste of tax payer resources and the military’s time.

http://www.mrseb.co.uk Sebastian Anthony

A slow reply, but thank you for the input :) Very interesting.

Anonymous

What does my head in, is that money is spent on weapons and
war technology to make it easier to kill people. That money could probably
sustain medical aid for the USA citizens which should be a top priority.
Instead of building a caring society, money is spent for destruction. I know
this sounds simplistic but if one stops and really thinks about it, one realises
that its is absolutely ludicrous. It is senseless even to people who do not
believe that the “so called enemy” are our brothers in disguise.

http://buzzcoastin.posterous.com BuzzCoastin

The Homeland annually spends more on “defense” than all other countries combined. It spends 6 times more than China, the next largest big spender. It has over 2000 military bases scattered throughout 63 foreign countries. The Bush administration could not account for $2.3 trillion missing Pentagon funds.

This $2.7 billion is toilet paper money, a proverbial drop in the bucket. It’s also comes as no surprise.

Boris Badenov

Because of piss-ant civilians allowing the enemy to kill us without impunity while we have rules of engagement that are less than a school yard fight.

Understanding the culture, kill the tribal leaders and their families-then you will win. Otherwise, keep the college-knowledge and cowardly public out of a job we were forced to clean up after the last Democratic clown.

http://pulse.yahoo.com/_QOTCSTXUKNPYJUZXW67MFQBVG4 John Smith

Thats what you get for letting private industry bid for military contracts. The army could have developed its own system with paid government programmers using open source software as a core.

http://pulse.yahoo.com/_QOTCSTXUKNPYJUZXW67MFQBVG4 John Smith

Thats what you get for letting private industry bid for military contracts. The army could have developed its own system with paid government programmers using open source software as a core.

http://profile.yahoo.com/4N723OHMLAFT4O7FVQECWNSE3Y Victor Mahn

Now that nearly a year has gone by, most of the technical issues have sorted themsleves out and DCGS-A is moving to its release date. It is abundantly clear that Palantir was behind this article, either directly or indiectly. Its their MO. Well, they lost. TheArmy’s proponents, mostly civil servants, won. And they did a fairly good job working within their arcane systems development construct. They wouldn’t budge on their security requirements. God for them!

http://www.mrseb.co.uk/ Sebastian Anthony

cool — thanks for the update!

Khevin

why do you hate MSFT so much?

http://www.facebook.com/people/Guy-Falkes/100002818174802 Guy Falkes

Perhaps if those supporting the broken system were put on trial for treason, (They are aiding the enemy) then the system would get replaced with one that works.

Use of this site is governed by our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Copyright 1996-2015 Ziff Davis, LLC.PCMag Digital Group All Rights Reserved. ExtremeTech is a registered trademark of Ziff Davis, LLC. Reproduction in whole or in part in any form or medium without express written permission of Ziff Davis, LLC. is prohibited.